precipitation_rate

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description discloses the time offset constraints (min 2 hours, max 121 hours) and the return unit (millimeters per second), which is useful. However, with no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It does not mention potential errors (e.g., invalid location, out-of-range offset), data source, or whether the value is an instantaneous rate or averaged. This is adequate but not rich.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is well-structured with a clear summary, parameter explanations, return type, and examples. It is slightly verbose with the examples taking up space, but they are genuinely helpful for understanding the offset semantics. Every section earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool has an output schema, so return values are documented. The description covers the two required parameters, their semantics, and constraints. It lacks edge-case handling (e.g., what happens for invalid locations or out-of-range offsets) and does not mention data source or accuracy, but for a simple lookup tool it is largely complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does: it explains the 'location' parameter with an example ('Zurich') and the 'lead_time_swiss' parameter with a detailed definition ('Hour offset from today at 00:00 Swiss local time') plus min/max bounds and examples. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Get precipitation rate for a location at a specific offset time.' It specifies the resource (precipitation rate), the location, and the time offset. It is distinct from siblings like total_rainfall or snow_depth, which measure different weather variables.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides clear context on when to use the tool: for precipitation rate at a specific hour offset. It includes examples that illustrate usage. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives (e.g., total_rainfall for accumulated precipitation), so it falls short of a 5.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.